no evidence Laser code for LTD / R can't be set when switch is safe position

[Martin2487]

Can't set laser code to laser designator when switch is safe position. I don't think that's accurate. For example, it should be possible to set the laser code on the ground. For comparison, LST can be set to ground. So I think it should logically be possible for LTD / R.

[Drac]

Found this on the Internet:

 

4.3 LTD Laser Arming & Safety Interlocks

 

 

Laser Inhibit Envelope

Before the LTD can be fired, either manually or automatically, three sets of laser firing criteria must be met:

Laser Armed - The laser is initially commanded to ARM via the LTD/R ARM switch on the Sensor Control Panel. Full arming can only take place when:

Landing gear is up and locked

Aircraft in A/G Master Mode

Weight off Wheels

FLIR is in OPR status

FLIR is not in the default pointing mode

FLIR has valid AVMUX communication with the MC

FLIR has valid communication with LTD/R

Laser code is valid

[Bankler]

Sorry for the 2019 necro. But this doesn't seem to be correct. What Drac found (in August 2019...) only explains when the laser can be fired, not when you should be able to set the laser code.

 

According to GB, you should always be able to set the code, regardless if the laser is armed or not. At least it wasn't in any of the software versions he flew, and I can't really imagine a reason why that would change. It would be a very arbitrary limitation. Setting up the laser code before take off makes a lot of sense.

 

These were my questions to him:

 

Q:

1) Can the laser be armed when on the ground?
2) Do you need to arm the laser to change laser code?
3) Is there any way you can set the laser code for the tpod before you take off?

A:
1) I think the answer is no. Memory faded on that a bit but I am 80% sure. (He later asked another pilot, who verified this, but that's already correctly implemented anyway)
2) No. You can change the code without laser armed.
3) Yes. Just change it whenever you want.

 

He also added "I did fly a different software version and I do know for a fact that several big differences exist between my timeline and older ATFLIRs. I really don’t think changing laser codes would be one of them, but I can’t be sure."

 

So my take on it is that it should be considered a bug, unless documentation clearly says otherwise.

[BarTzi]

@BIGNEWY Can you take a second look at this, please? Thanks!

[NineLine]

On 5/5/2021 at 2:02 PM, Bankler said:

So my take on it is that it should be considered a bug, unless documentation clearly says otherwise.

Has to be the opposite sorry, we require actual documentation that this can be done. I will look into it a little deeper, but the team works very hard to get things correct based on available information, most likely this is what we have, so we would need evidence it is different. Thanks.

[BarTzi]

On 5/11/2021 at 7:12 PM, NineLine said:

Has to be the opposite sorry, we require actual documentation that this can be done. I will look into it a little deeper, but the team works very hard to get things correct based on available information, most likely this is what we have, so we would need evidence it is different. Thanks.

Not to underestimate the team's efforts during this time, but will you consider asking your SME's?

[maxTRX]

These codes can be entered on a mission card (when it's implemented here) in the planning room, away from LTD/R arm switch... can they?

[Jak525]

On 5/11/2021 at 9:12 AM, NineLine said:

Has to be the opposite sorry, we require actual documentation that this can be done. I will look into it a little deeper, but the team works very hard to get things correct based on available information, most likely this is what we have, so we would need evidence it is different. Thanks.

Do you have evidence that supports the current implementation? If that were the case I'd understand. However, faced with no evidence supporting one behavior and pilots with real experience supporting the other behavior, it makes little sense to go with the former.

 

You are asking for evidence that something CAN be done, when it has been arbitrarily limited already (if you don't have evidence for said arbitrary limitation).

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jak525

[Mo410]

Laser codes can definitely be set on the ground or air, both LST and LTD, same with IR marker and IR marker pattern.  The UFC just has LTD above LST, and entry is fairly straight forward, colonize and enter the code and the Enter.  Codes range from 1111 to 1688, with only 1511-1688 being useful for LGBs, the lower codes - I believe - are more suited for helo's and their weapons.  This is to say you could set something lower than 1511, but it would be impractical, and I have never seen it tasked or used - not sure exactly what <1511 is used for, never had the chance to use it - it definitely accepted the input.  Laser codes are mission critical, so it must be set prior to takeoff to minimize risk of error, and even still there are errors in codes and IR marker / Trg laser.  Similar to A/A radar presets, which have now been fixed.  

[BarTzi]

4 hours ago, Jak525 said:

Do you have evidence that supports the current implementation?

 

I'm going to take a guess and say it's the system schematics documentation, but the only thing I can understand from it is that you can't arm LTDR on the ground.

Edited May 18, 2021 by BarTzi

[Harker]

I'm going to take a guess and say it's the system schematics documentation, but the only thing I can understand from it is that you can't arm LTDR on the ground.

Sure, you can't arm the laser, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to change the frequency though.

[BarTzi]

1 hour ago, Harker said:

2 hours ago, BarTzi said:

I'm going to take a guess and say it's the system schematics documentation, but the only thing I can understand from it is that you can't arm LTDR on the ground.

Sure, you can't arm the laser, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to change the frequency though.

I agree, which is why I think they should ask their SME about this.

[Foka]

@Mo410 great info, thanks. Could you explain one more thing that is bugging me with a Hornet's laser - does it really works that way yhat after bomb drop with auto lase the LTD/R switches off and pilot has to manually switch it on with every bomb?

[BarTzi]

Respectfully, let's not derail this thread any further, since this is rather important QOL change. When we have two people who used the system explain to us that this can be done, I don't think this thread should be tagged as 'no evidence'

[Mo410]

8 hours ago, Foka said:

@Mo410 great info, thanks. Could you explain one more thing that is bugging me with a Hornet's laser - does it really works that way yhat after bomb drop with auto lase the LTD/R switches off and pilot has to manually switch it on with every bomb?

Yes unless you select trigger laser, then it remains armed. Used to be an overheat issue with some pods, but no longer with the newer ones, but the logic remains.

 

Always do MALT check, master arm, A/G mode, Laser, TDC assigned to correct display. 

[Foka]

Thanks, ech, I forget about that switch way too often

[Bankler]

On 5/11/2021 at 6:12 PM, NineLine said:

Has to be the opposite sorry, we require actual documentation that this can be done. I will look into it a little deeper, but the team works very hard to get things correct based on available information, most likely this is what we have, so we would need evidence it is different. Thanks.

 

Respectfully, now we have three experts (GB, GB's Hornet pilot friend, and Mo410) confirming that the code can be set on the ground. All respect for the team (they are heroes... the amount of bug fixes in the last patch is absolutely insane!), but I'm curious to hear what documentation they could possibly have that claims the opposite. 

 

Because it doesn't make much sense to arbitrarily make something impossible just because documentation doesn't explicitly say that you can do it. With that reasoning, you could for instance argue that you shouldn't be able to use rudder trim if below 1400 lbs of fuel, unless the documentation explicitly says that you can do this (or any other arbitrary limitation).

 

Unless you have documentation claiming you can't set the code on the ground for the OFP that is being simulated, or any other OFP for that matter, maybe it should be accepted that it's simply an assumption from the developer who wrote the code for this system in the game. Nothing strange about that (if you don't know, you have to guess, should happen all the time!), but that doesn't mean it's correct.

 

Cheers!

 

(Sorry for the messy look of the first image! Didn't want to display names on anyone without clear permission)

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Bankler

[Jak525]

Exactly what Bankler said. Here's a way of looking at it:

 

You're making a pasta according to a recipe. You add sausages, which were not in the recipe. You are told it shouldn't have sausages. A few chefs, who were there when the recipe was made, even say it shouldn't have sausage. It wouldn't make sense to say they need specific evidence stating it should not have sausage. Rather, no sausage should be the default until proven otherwise, not the opposite.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Jak525

[Bankler]

@BIGNEWYHow's the investigation on this one going? Curious what you SMEs are saying, especially in the context of the unambiguous Hornet driver claims above ( @G B @Mo410etc). Cheers!

[Bankler]

Bumping this. Any word from your SMEs? Unless you're willing to take Mo410 and GBs words for it that is.

 

I realize there are other more pressing issues. Still, it's quite annoying, and it doesn't seem like a huge thing to fix code-wise, so it would be great if could get taken care of.

[BIGNEWY]

I will run it by the team again, but as stated we do need to see evidence, I will take a look myself also, but we are in no rush to change something without having some evidence first.

 

Thanks

[Harker]

I'm going to start sounding like a broken record, but I'd like to again point out that, unless there's documentation that explicitly states that something cannot be done, then common logic (it can be done in all other comparable aircraft) and witness testimony (three people with IRL experience) are the next best things.

The laser arm switch is a consent switch that allows the laser to be fired, it doesn't remove power from the entire relevant system, when in SAFE.

[cofcorpse]

@HarkerI'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. With that logic we can go far beyond any reasonable state. Like BIGNEWY stated above, we are investigating and we need something before making the change.

Also, I didn't want to point that out, but in the attached conversation there is one thing that makes me think twice before using it.

 

There is already information to proof other point of view, so I suggest to wait and see what the result of the investigation would be.

Thank you for the discussion!

Edited August 2, 2021 by cofcorpse

[Harker]

8 minutes ago, cofcorpse said:

@HarkerI'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. With that logic we can go far beyond any reasonable state. Like BIGNEWY stated above, we are investigating and we need something before making the change.

Also, I didn't want to point that out, but in the attached conversation there is one thing that makes me think twice before using it.

 

There is already information to proof other point of view, so I suggest to wait and see what the result of the investigation would be.

Thank you for the discussion!

 

If you do have information that points to the current implementation, then I have nothing more to say. It was never pointed out to us, so I wrote my comment in that context, plus the conversation that was presented.

Also, thank you for the reply and I appreciate the update. It'll be interesting to see where the investigation leads.

[cofcorpse]

4 minutes ago, Harker said:

If you do have information that points to the current implementation, then I have nothing more to say. It was never pointed out to us, so I wrote my comment in that context, plus the conversation that was presented.

Also, thank you for the reply and I appreciate the update. It'll be interesting to see where the investigation leads.

I'm afraid you understood me wrong. We don't have any actual information, it was stated above. But it is already done, we used available information and logic, and to change it we need something solid.

I can't agree with "unless there's documentation that explicitly states that something cannot be done, then common logic (it can be done in all other comparable aircraft) and witness testimony (three people with IRL experience) are the next best things"

There are a lot of examples where common logic fails due to different reasons, and experts make wrong statements due to wrong questions or other reasons.

 

So, let's wait and see the conclusion.

Thanks!